– Mr Ambassador, how would you evaluate parliamentary elections, I mean the whole voting process held in Armenia on April 2. Do you think Armenia made progress as compared to previous elections? Which were the positive and negative aspects of elections?
Thank you very much for this opportunity. Let me say that now a few days after the voting day we are in a very important phase of the process, the post electoral process. It is time to see how the complaints submitted by various actors are being handled, it is the time to see how the cases of the breach of the Electoral Code already as established by the law enforcement agency are being handled, it is the time to analyse very carefully, very quietly all the evidence, all the documentary and other sort of evidence that we have. Thanks to the European Union I think for the first time in the independent history of Armenia we have such a possibility to look in all the evidence collected during the voting procedure, we have the opportunity to analyse the signed voters lists, we have the opportunity to go for the recordings of video cameras, we have the opportunity to examine all the other evidence including those evidence collected by unprecedented high number of observers, international and civil society observers. So nothing is final, no assessment and no conclusion is final until we have the full picture. So now that the political emotions are being calmed down, I think this time, at least for the European Union, who has invested so much in terms of money and also political effort, it’s time to have the full picture of what has happened before and on the election day. I think that this work that has now being conducted is very important, because we can see how the different signals that were already reported by the international observation mission can be confirmed by material evidence. Let’s look for instance at the cases as reported by international observers of open voting, group voting, assisted voting, the presence of people who are neither observers nor voters, as you can see the reports by international observers that there were such cases spotted and reported. Now examining video recordings, we can see, Ok? How spread this practice was, in which places, when and so on and so forth. This is very important, also not only to build trust in the democratic procedures, but also to draw the right conclusions for the future. I think that in particular this cases of open voting and group voting, this is something that should be taken into account into voters’ education, but also I think it’s now clear that the officials, the electoral officials including people working at the polling stations should receive clear guidance how to prevent such situations. So the European Union, which is sponsoring the effort of several civil society organizations, we want to remain very fair, for us what is important is that the right conclusions have been drawn from the examination of all this evidence for the future practices of democratic activities in Armenia. So as I said we have now time quietly to examine without political emotion, without jumping to conclusions, without overreaction, simply, quietly but in a methodic way.
– Do you think Armenia made progress as compared to the previous elections?
Look, when you read carefully the initial report of the international observation mission, you can easily determine that they highlight both the good points but also the negative points. For us, for the European Union, as you know, we have been working very, very closely in the preparations of the elections and also in the election day, I might say I visited several polling stations, my colleagues from the Delegation also, with our Delegation from the European Parliament we spend with them a lot of time, we know what the saw, we know what thought. The good things definitely are the fundamental political freedoms that you expect to be applied during the electoral campaign. As observed by international visitors here, the basic freedoms like the freedom of association, the freedom of assembly, the freedom of speech, were generally respected. If you look at the freedom of association, I think that everyone, every political party or grouping which wanted to run in the elections, could run. In Armenia, no administrative or judicial procedures were put in place in order to prevent anyone or any political party from running. If you compare to other countries in the region, but also in some other places in the wide European space, that’s definitely a good example. Then when you take the freedom of speech, I think that even very critical observers of the state of media in Armenia, they confirm that every political party had the opportunity to pass its message through the mass media. Of course some people complain that in some media the level playing field was not insured, but essentially if it is about passing your message to the population nobody can complain that any political party was discriminated or put in a disadvantageous position. And again, if you compare what happen in Armenia to other countries also in the region this is really a progress, a big progress. Then if you take the freedom of assembly, unlike in many countries also in Europe, there were no impediments for any political party to convene rallies, election meetings so on and so forth. Some, of course rallies, some meetings were associated with even violence, as we know, but these were very isolated cases. What is important also for us is that no administrative measures were undertaken in order to prevent people from gathering for the purpose of election. So these are the good sides, then I think that for us, for the European Union what is very important is that the new technologies worked well. I think that even the guys who were directly involved in the preparations of it were surprised how well the new technology worked, in particular voter authentication technology. For us because the European Union has spent a lot of money on this, is a reason to feel satisfaction. What it means in practice? I think that we help to create an unprecedented level of transparency, an unprecedented level also of securing the secrecy and the anonymity of the vote, whether Armenian voters had the necessary level of confidence, this time we shall see. But I think that we created a good precedent. I think that with these technologies we achieved something which should be a point of no return. Again when you look at the report of the international observation mission, they point out that thanks to the new technology several bad practices from the past were significantly reduced. What were the bad practices? Of course, multiple voting, proxy voting, carousel voting. This time international observers do not refer to such cases. I only hope it is irreversible, that this new technology, this new approach is something which will stay on in Armenia and this will be something that will not be abandoned, because I think that Armenian voters will appreciate how much transparency thanks to our including European Union assistance was brought into the process. So these were the good elements and I have a lot of appreciation to our colleagues from UNDP from the government of Armenia, who have worked very, very hard in order to put this technology into operation. I would even say that this is – Armenia set a world record in terms of the time between the decision and the election. No other country had so little time to do it and it worked. Some of my colleagues from UNDP say it was kind of miracle. Of course there were hiccups, there were technical problems including during the voting of very high officials, but even for me when visiting all these polling stations I was surprised, I was really amazed how qualified, how quick these young ladies in particular, how efficient they were in operating these new technologies. These are the good sides and I think that to be fair we have to recognize that these good elements should be appreciated.
Now the bad sides. Of course, when you look again at the observations of the international team, they say explicitly that the electoral process was tainted by some very bad practices in particular vote buying, in particular the pressure exerted by public officials or even within private companies. And this is something quite disappointing. No surprise for me because if you remember for several months I was appealing to Armenians to resist the temptation of taking bribes, to resist the temptation of selling their vote, to be courageous enough to resist the pressures. Yes, I was trying to prevent to the extent possible this bad phenomenon. Now everybody is talking about. I can see that from all parts of the political spectrum and civil society people, but even political parties not only those who lost but also those who won, who are in the Parliament, they refer that this is bad and they say that this is deplorable. But unfortunately it tainted the overall picture of the elections, it sent bad signal concerning the image of Armenia and its democratic processes. I can only express my regret that the calls that were addressed by me were not followed by all. Of course I am very glad that some of the civil activists and even some figures from the culture life I am very indebted to ArmComedy that they took a very active role in appealing to Armenians to resist to selling their votes. I am very grateful to some NG organizations in particular to Union of Informed Citizens for exposing this very deplorable practices conducted by some school officials, headmaster, teachers in some schools.
-The EU, Great Britain and the US did their best providing financial support to Armenia to organize the elections on higher standards. Do you think it was worth it? Did this investment make a real difference?
I think that the initial conclusion is that it was worth it. Our money was spent well; the technology which was put in place, despite some malfunctioning in particular by video cameras it was assessed positively by international observers. The final conclusion we can make only from the time perspective that is big enough, because as I said, we hoped that what was happening in Armenia in good terms is irreversible and we hope very much that the bad practices which are now even recognized by the winners will be eliminated and eliminated very soon. For me frankly the test whether the right lesson have been drawn what happened on the second of April will be already the elections to the city council of Yerevan. If we see all these bad things being repeated, then we may be having a very pessimistic assessment that there is something wrong with the political culture of Armenia.
I am an optimist by nature; it’s not only a professional optimism. So I hope very much these statements that I can hear from the different corners of the political class saying that this was very bad what was happening in terms of selling votes, in terms of electoral corruption in particular but also pressure exerted by officials, that this is something that should be eliminated. And I think it is in the long term interest of Armenia, because a parliamentary seat bought will not be bringing the right legitimacy in the long term. So I hope very much that the political class will draw the necessary conclusions, I hope very much that the official institutions in particular law enforcement agencies will draw proper conclusions. I agree, we had conversations with them, they say it is very difficult in particular vote buying is very difficult to collect the necessary evidence. The experience of the other countries is all people say sometimes it is difficult to draw a line between charity and bribes, I can tell you, you don’t have to reinvent the wheel. Other countries had similar problems, Armenia is not alone. Other countries were able to tackle it sometimes quite satisfactorily, and even when you look at the modern technologies, law enforcement, if they have the right approach and right will, they can do something. The example of the Union of Informed Citizens show that even NGOs can be quite effective in exposing these bad practices. So I hope very much that people everywhere, not only the political class, realize that this is very bad for the future of the Armenia, that this type of practices, in particular vote buying, is tarnishing the image of the country and is really hampering the development of the country. Even if today people who were successfully organizing voters in buying votes, they say OK I achieved my goal.
Unfortunately even now Armenia during before the elections and after the elections, when you look to some western newspapers, western journals, everyone writes about vote buying. Frankly, as EU Ambassador in Armenia I wouldn’t like Armenia to be associated with this type of transactional politics. Armenians are entrepreneurial, but I think that there are values which are not for sale.
-I know you have met with the representative of the civil society and the independent monitoring groups, you are generally familiar with their assessments of the elections. How do you feel their role, their participation in whole pre-electoral process and during the elections on April the 2nd?
As you know the European Union has spent more than 300 thousand Euros to support civil society efforts in different forms, mainly through the support to the deployment of observers. And again, I think that these elections in terms of the number of observers, in number of coverage of polling stations set a record. Sometimes people complain that there were more observers in the room than voters. I think that in terms of enhancing public confidence in the process this is very important, even if it is not convenient. It is important. And I understand that some people may overreact to what the civil society organizations say or do, but they are part of the electoral process. They have the right to be vigilant, they have the right to undertake whistleblowing activities, and they have the right to point out to critical things, because sometimes people who work in civil society speak only about the bad phenomena, they never praise what was good, only concentrate on the negative things. But that’s natural. That’s their role. So I believe that we should appreciate, and we as the European Union we appreciate. Even if sometimes we can see emotions around what they do and what they say, even if sometimes we see overreaction, but that’s part of the democratic culture and I should say that Armenia in terms of the vitality of the civil society environment can set very good example for other countries. Civil society in Armenia is an asset.
–Will the ties with the Eurasian Union influence on the vitality of Armenian civil society?
I hope that Eurasian Economic Union will have nothing to do with the vitality of Armenian civil society.
–You and the US ambassador have repeatedly mentioned that corruption is a national security threat for Armenia. These elections in some sense showed that the ruling party isn`t going to give up corruption even if need be to endanger the national security. Does the Republican party-led government keep enjoying the EU support?
Let me say that I agree with you that these elections confirm that we as the European Union are right in defining corruption as one of the biggest, if not biggest impediment to the development of Armenia. I think that this bad phenomenon which were happening on the election and before will serve as a catharsis for all the people including the politicians. They will realize it’s a kind of wake-up call, a sobering phenomenon. Because without tackling it, Armenia will not be able to make a breakthrough. How to do it, is another story. As I said before the elections, the Government of Prime Minister Karapetyan has developed quite good plans, ideas, including legislative acts. I understand that now the work to implement these plans will precede full steam, because I understand some of the plans were delayed, due to the fact that the National Assembly could not be convened before the elections, so now it’s the time to deliver. We are expecting that what the Prime Minister was promising to me and also to Armenians in particular, including the establishment of independent anticorruption agency.
–So you will keep supporting the government?
Yes, we will work with the government on fighting corruption. We believe that the plans that were developed before the elections were good plans, we hope now that there will be additional motivation to implement and there is the additional task to eliminate vote buying and electoral corruption, the political corruption which I believe is a serious threat to the development of not only to the political culture of Armenia, but the future of Armenia, including its pride, Armenian pride. So we are ready to work together as indicated in the statement by the Spokesman of Mrs. Mogherini. We have an agenda, the European Union – Armenia, so the next steps on this agenda are the conclusion of so-called Partnership Priorities, a political document, which will set the agenda for our cooperation. I hope that during the Cooperation Council in May we will sign. Armenia will be the first country from the Eastern Partnership to sign Partnership Priorities. I hope that during the Eastern Partnership Summit in November we will sign the new Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement. I hope very much that by summer we will have a decision on the next single support framework and it’s not a secret that there is a possibility to increase the funding to Armenia till 2020, which is included in the negotiations on this single support framework. So we will be conducting a matter of fact a very pragmatic approach to our cooperation implementing the goals that were set on each agenda.
–The negative side of the elections won’t change the agenda of the signing of the comprehensive document with the EU, because we had several observations that everything based on the elections how we are going to conduct the elections ourselves?
Concerning the assessment of the election, I think that the final assessment will still take time, including the assessment by the OSCE, the organization which takes the lead in assessments, also us here, because as you can remember some part of the funding will be disbursed on the basis of our assessment of the elections. So, it will still take time, but for the time being as declared by Brussels we are determined to continue our pragmatic agenda, we do not see anything which should complicate the implementation of this agenda and moreover we believe that whatever the political interpretation of the results of the elections we believe that the will of the Armenian people is to encourage the Government to undertake deep and comprehensive reforms and to seek long-lasting peace and security for the country. If there is any message contained in the elections, it is that Armenians expect deep and comprehensive reforms and we as the European Union will support that. We will work for the benefit of the Armenian people, because we also believe that Armenia should make decisive steps in reforming the country.
–The Prime Minister of Armenia during the seven months of his tenure hasn`t been invited to the EU continent. Can it be expected that as an important partner of Armenia such kind of invitation will be in near future or such programs are not intended?
I am not informed about the plans of the leaders of the European Union in particular Jean-Claude Juncker, or President Tusk concerning their agenda, but I believe that the contacts with the Prime Minister of Armenia will be part of the agenda. For the time being, we should remember that only a few weeks ago the President of Armenia visited Brussels, so I think that 2017 is another year where we have levels at the highest level and I think that at least in Brussels the interest to continue the dialogue at the very highest level including Prime Minster level is there. At least all officials, high level officials, who come to Armenia, meet very gladly with the Prime Minister. I myself remember very warm conversation between the Director General of DG NEAR Danielsson when was here and Danielsson is the highest ranking civil servant in the Commission. They had a very long and I think very constructive conversation with the Prime Minister. Quite recently before the elections the Vice President of the European Investment Bank had a very friendly conversation with the Prime Minister. So far I can say that all high level visitors from the Brussels meet the Prime Minster and these conversations are very inspiring.
–Do you see brims of cooperation with the political parties passed to the parliament, especially when at least two forces of ELK coalition have stressed attitude towards our country`s enhanced cooperation with the EU.
We remain neutral and as you could see me as the Head of the European Union Delegation, I was quite passive before the election day in my contacts with the political figures, both from the ruling coalition but also from the opposition, because I want that Armenians have a very objective view of our role here. We are neutral, for us what matters are the standards, European values, the standards of democracy and the transparency and clean nature of the process. But of course we would welcome any initiative in the Parliament included in the new composition of the National Assembly which would support the path of Armenia moving it closer to European values, to European standards. And of course I am aware that one of the political parties made explicitly the European model of state one of its elements of its electoral manifesto. We believe that it is something that is very positive for Armenia, and I believe that more European values, more references to European standards, European legislation, in the discourse of the political parties of Armenia, the better climate for our work here, because for us it is not about who is in the government, who is in the opposition, as long as it is democratic, as long as it is fair, is OK. As long as there are no extremists it is OK. Of course one of the good things of the electoral campaign in Armenia is that there were no extremist forces, including extremists who would advocate very anti-European approaches. I have never heard during the electoral campaign any political party which would go against the European values, which is already something good. But if there are political forces inside the National Assembly who advocate pro-EU stance we cannot say that we do not pay attention. I think that more references to Europe in political discourse of Armenia, the better for Armenia, because I think that Armenians by their mentality, by their mindset, by their expectations they are very European. I think that they would wish to live by European standards, not only in terms of prosperity and social security and things like that, but also in terms of freedom, tolerance, and this space for personal initiative.
–The authorities of the Republic of Armenia promise to proofread the main violations which were recorded during parliamentary elections for Yerevan municipal elections. Are they important to the EU in the same way?
I can tell you very openly. For us the elections of the City Council of Yerevan will be very important test whether the lessons of national elections have been really considered and drawn properly. In particular, whether this bad phenomenon that was spotted during the national elections are seriously addressed. What are the bad phenomena? In particular vote buying, administrative pressures, but also the behaviour of voters on the voting day, what I refer to as open voting, group voting and so on. So I hope that even if it is difficult it’s doable. And I hope very much that the public opinion, because what we are saying OK politicians, law enforcement, but look there are many people in Armenia who have a moral integrity, who have moral stance, who are respected by the population, they are not politicians, they are men from culture, science, intellectuals, even religious leaders. If they send a clear signal that this is something even from the moral perspective unacceptable, I think that the society will follow them, because they are natural leaders of the society, moral leaders. So I hope very much that after the 15th of May we can see the good things are forever, the bad things are from the past.
